Municipal Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Will you please state the invocation? Let us bow. God, we bow for your presence thanking you master for the state for the blessings of grace bestow upon us. And Lord, we pray for our community, our country, those who are in bereavement and those in loss master. Now enable us to do the things you find pleasing in your sight that you get all honor, glory, and praise. It's in your son's name we pray. Amen. Amen. John, do you mind doing the pledge? Yes, sir. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Uh, Maryanne, roll call. Chair Harris, Vice Chair Morell here, Mr. here. Mayor Brown, Councilman Fan here, Mr. Strowler here. Mr. Thompson, you have a quarum. Thanks, Marian. Uh, Secretary, do you have minutes from the August 4th and August 25th meetings to present? Um, yes, I do. I have minutes dated August 4th, 2025 planning commission work session meeting and August 25th um, regular agenda meeting minutes. And I make a motion that we approve them without any changes or modifications. Second. Second.

Okay. So, I have a motion from John, second from Steve. Uh, any discussion? Seeing none, a call for the vote. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed? Passes unanimously. Uh, next we will go to public comment on agenda related items. Uh please note that there will be a section for uh some of the items later on in the agenda that uh have a public com have a public comment tied to them. Uh but this is for anything else on the agenda. Um so if you if there are any public comments on agenda related items, we'll open that public hearing at this point. Seeing none, we will close public comment on agenda related items and move forward to the consent agenda. U the consent agenda are items that are uh minor uh and that the staff sees um can be handled via consent. Um are there any uh is there anyone from the planning commission or staff that wishes to remove any of the items on the consent agenda? Okay. Uh before we go to a vote, I'll just read read those off. uh consent agenda. We've got item number one, that's a GMPC resolution number 2025 100, is shy renewals and extensions. Number two is Carolton phase 7A acceptance of public improvements. Number three is Twin Eagles phase 15 acceptance of public improvements. Number four is Bledo Springs phase one final plat. Number five is Bledo Springs phase two final plat. Number six is Bledo Springs phase three final plat. Number seven is Savannah Marketplace Phase 2 resubdivision of lots 4 A, 4 B, 4 C, and 4D final plat. And then number eight is Laurelwood Park phase one final plat. Uh does any anyone have a motion on the consent agenda?

We accept consent agenda. Do we have a motion from Albert? I'll second. Have a second from John. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will call for the vote. All those in favor of the consent agenda, please say I. I I all those opposed. All right. Consent agenda passes unanimously. So we'll move forward to our regular agenda. Uh this is item number nine. Gregory Roundtree annexation. Who from staff has this one?

That would be me.

Awesome. Thanks, Brian. Waiting for the PowerPoint to get there. All right. So, this is the Gregory annexation. Um there's a request for an annexation of 325.53 plus or minus acres uh just north of the um Facebook site off of Bright Lane and Roundtree Drive. Um, so the portion of the property south of Roundtree Drive is directly adjacent to that portion that is within the uh the Facebook property. And then the way that it's contiguous to, and we've discussed this before, is via Bright's Lane. Uh there has been a minor change based on um some feedback from the engineering department that they did not want to bring in all of Bright's Lane. So in order to keep it still contiguous, you see just a very small portion right there at Bright's Lane that sort of connects the two. Um and so um it is still contiguous based on that but um does not include most of Bright's Lane at this point. Um so and I believe that's uh yeah there's one recommended uh condition on this and that's to change the length of that line uh which is right there where inside the circle to not be 25 ft but to be 10 feet. Um and that's to try to avoid bringing in any more of Bright's Lane than we have to.

Okay. There's a public comment on this. Yes. Okay. At this time, uh we will open up a public comment for anyone wishing to speak on this item.

Push button on the front. Button on the front. I tried pushing that button and I didn't push hard enough. I apologize. Rosemary Bay Gallatton Economic Development Agency, 132 West Main Street. I'm hoping that you will give this a favorable vote. Um, even though they are not required to let you know at an annexation what their intention is. We've had many discussions over the last couple of years that they would ask for this to be zoned industrial. So, I hope you'll give it a favorable vote. We are almost out of industrial zone property and lots of interest still in manufacturers moving to Gallton. So thank you.

Thanks Mary. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will close the public comment. Is there a representative from the applicant present? Andy Leath, Greenley Design, 114B, West Main Street. Happy to entertain any questions. Uh, I think we discussed this at length during the work session. Um, makes sense. I don't have any crazy questions or comments. Are there any other questions or comments from Commission? John,

I just need clarification. What am I seeing that's highlighted in yellow? Why is that highlighted in yellow? So the portion highlighted in yellow is u just showing that corner where um it helps it to be contiguous but um it's hard to see really because uh it's small on the screen even but what there is is uh that Bright's Lane annexation line used to go to the center of Bright's Lane uh for a decent portion of it and now it's only coming out and according to the condition of approval. If you look on the next slide here, uh it's saying change the lengths of line lines L28 and L30 to 10 feet instead of 25 ft. That is the two lines that pop out and go around Roundtree. So, u they're wanting that to be only 10 feet instead of sticking out 25 feet to the center line of of uh Bright's Lane. Did I explain that well enough, Andy?

No. So, essentially, per year, the the property on the bottom of the page is is owned by the same owner as a property on the north part of the page or the upper part of the page. These properties are very old and it's not unusual for them to still own ownership of the roadway bed. And this is the case here. Um, so the owner, Mr. Gregory, actually still owns all of Bright's Lane in some portions, half of Bright's Lane along some parts of the frontage. All of where annexing is is enough to uh keep the two properties connected, and the city wanted the smallest amount possible for annexation. So there's a 10-ft sliver between where Round Tree stops beyond Round Tree to get us from the southern property to the northern property

and remain contiguous. I'll be honest, I can't I can't honestly say I completely understand that. I didn't I didn't I didn't grasp it. What's important to me is that when we look at this getting developed, I just kind of want to go on record that don't we need to kind of correct the uh uh the intersection of Brights Lane with Round Tree? Round Tree hits Brightes Lane at a sharp acute angle, doesn't it? No, I think that going forward once this progresses beyond annexation into resoning and then site plan approvals that lots of these things will have to be addressed. Okay. That you're bringing up,

right? And and it I failed to mention also that Roundtree Drive is a discussion that we will have at a future time for annexing. Um so Round Tree had dedicated street already. Round tree is a county road that the county has been deeded.

Ah okay. So we we would not be bringing in Roundtree at this point in time but um we are in discussions with them and uh you know it would seek to try to annex Roundtree at some point not part of this annexation but here in the near future in order to make sure that you know if if requests wanted to come in for gaining access from Roundtree Drive they wouldn't have to go to the county to get a driveway permit. or something like that to be able to even do what they want to do. So, um, we the the engineering department has, um, expressed interest in annexing that portion of Roundtree Drive that is essentially between Bright's Lane here and over in here where that residential subdivision starts on the other side. Okay. Are you saying that the there'll be an entrance and an exit off 31 on Round Tree?

No, not at this point in time. Um, so 31 um does not connect to this property. That's that's the problem. And is there a hope that it will connect with 31? I was the first person to move into Round Tree back in the 80s and I kind of well real familiar with this area.

Well, I guess I should say Round Tree does connect further up through that residential subdivision, but that but not through this property. Does that make sense? Councilman, I I know it's a little premature to enter into this conversation, but our intent and our hope would be that if this entire 300 acres goes industrial that we have an alternative access likely from the industrial the existing industrial park. I mean, it would have to. Yeah.

Even though we don't control any of those properties, anybody looking and planning this way could see that that would be where we we try to go. That's fine. I didn't mean to open a can of worms. I was just trying to understand the yellow mark on there and what it was about. They're good questions. I mean, and these are all things we're going to have to deal with at the site plan level when it gets there. And it's, you know, don't know when that'll be, whether it's going to be in the next six months or next five years.

Anything else, John? Nope. I will entertain a motion. I will say too before you vote, this is just a little we have submitted and and Mr. Rose can can let you guys know we have submitted for a comp plan amendment. That way people know we do want this to go industrial. So that comp plan amendment would at least would be the first step and that will go in before any reasonzoning. It's it's submitted to planning right now. Okay. So it's on the path. I don't know which will get first, the the reszone request or the comp plan amendment request. I don't know. I guess reszone will be dealt with or no, excuse me, annexation. Well, annexation and comp plan can run concurrently. So,

but we have turned it in. It is a matter of record. It's been turned in. So, we're serious about this gold industrial. So, I know it was brought up at the work session. What assurances can you offer us? Yeah. At least we're changing the comp plan or requesting the comp plan be amended. Okay, that makes sense. I'll make a motion that we approve item number nine with the one uh staff condition listed. Okay, I'll second.

Albert will second. All right, we have a motion from John and a second from Albert. Uh any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Passes unanimously. Then we'll move on to item number 10. This is Savannah Marketplace Phase 2 amended preliminary master development plan and revised final master development plan. Jim.

Thank you CJ. Mr. Chair Jim Carpenter staff planner. Uh the owner and applicant request approval of an amended PMDP and revised FMDP for Savannah Marketplace Phase 2 consisting of six buildings totaling uh just a touch under 71,000 square feet on 8.94 acres on PGC Plain General Commercial Zone District located south of Nashville Pike and east of Gordon's Crossing. uh the owner and applicant request approval to add a six building. So the previous plan had five three larger buildings, a small out parcel and a very small jewelbox building. Um, and so they're looking to add another building on the north side of the property and add a few drive-thrus, um, rearrange some of the parking and, uh, reallocate some of the square footage between allowed uses, um, retail, office, and restaurant. Um, as part of the Savannah Marketplace design guidelines, um, they had to reduce this building from a two-story building to a one-story building, um, which is makes up for basically their entire reduction in square footage. It also makes up, um, for their parking. So when this came to work session, um there's a long talk about um alternative parking plans and that was included in the um agenda item, but um with where they are right now, they are complying with the requirements of code for

minimum. Um, as always, uh, staff has concerns if that ratio of retail office to restaurant changes that they may not be compliant, but as currently proposed, um, this is compliant with our minimum and maximum parking requirements. Um, they are also in the process, I'm pretty sure that they're done, but I'm not 100%. um working through some other things within deed restrictions and um reciprocal access easement agreements within this event marketplace master plan. Um but those are all uh private deed restrictions that city has no um opinion on one way or the other per se. Um the owner applicant also requests approval of an alternative architecture plan. Um the architecture is very similar um to what was previously approved um just a little bit different in terms of brick percentages um that would take it under that 50% or under the 70% brick stone on all facads. Um but outside of that is pretty consistent. Um staff recommends that this be considered a minor amendment to the Savannah marketplace uh master development plan and Savannah marketplace phase 2 and recommends approval of resolution number 2025-103 with 22 conditions and there will be a public comment on this item.

Thanks Jim. Okay, so we will open the floor for public comment at this time. Seeing none, we will close the public comment and ask for a member from the representative or representative from the applicant.

Good evening. Um Ken Knuckles with Development Management Group here in Nashville representing the property owner and developer. Um we are in receipt of staff's comments and their report. um and are um fine with the 22 conditions that are placed on on the approval or the recommendation for approval. Um happy to answer any questions.

Okay. I think the I know this wasn't at the last work session, but the work session it was on, I think the biggest concern was the parking. So, I think that with y'all rectifying that, I think that that eases a lot of the concerns that a lot of people had. Um is there any questions or comments from anyone else on commission? motion be amendment. Okay, we have a motion that it's a minor amendment from Albert. Do we have a second? Second from Steve. Okay, any discussion on that being none, we will call for the vote. All those in favor of it being a minor amendment, please say I.

I. All those opposed. So, it is a minor amendment. Uh now we will go on to the actual uh agenda item itself, the amendment to the to the PMDP and the revision to the final to the FMDP. Any questions or comments there from the commission? Um just wanted to ask for clarification. Did I hear the applicants say they agree with all 22 staff? Okay. Yes, sir. Question.

Okay. Yeah. Like I said, I think the biggest concern was parking just because of all the issues that we're having just to the west with the restaurants. Uh so the more parking the better. Um okay, we'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve with staff's 22 conditions. Okay, we have a motion from John. Second from Albert. Uh, any discussion on this item before we go to a vote, Steve? Good. Okay. Uh, okay. So, we have a motion from John, second from Albert. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed. All right. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item number 11, Savannah Marketplace Starbucks monument sign.

Good evening. Kimberly Atley, staff planner. The owner applicant is requesting an alternative sign plan for Starbucks at Savannah Marketplace. It's located south of Nashville Pike and west of Gordon Crossing. It's a little over an acre. It's zone PGC. The purpose of this is because of the easement. There's a 20ft White House easement that runs along Nashville Pike and then also the steep slope. Um, this is cost it's not able to put the 8 foot maximum there. So they have come back and they're going to make a 14 foot build um sorry 14 foot sign. Six of it's going to be below grade and then the 8 foot sign. Uh the alternative sign is consistent with the intent in the recommendations of this plan. Gallatin staff does recommend the approval of resolution 2025-104.

Thanks Kimberly. Uh do we have a member present for the applicant? Jonathan Allison, Yasco Signs and Lighting, 603 North Main Street, Goodletzville, representing Hilton Displace. Okay. Uh, and you agree with all staff comments? Yes.

Okay. Uh, we discussed this at work session. This is just like the sign that uh just went through a couple months ago for Edley's and MROS. Uh, I think this is very straightforward and very much needed for this business to thrive. I'll make a motion to approve with all staff comments. I'll second the motion so that we can have discussion. I'm um I'm in favor of this. I looked at the site and it's it's necessary, but I guess I'm just want to ask a question to go on record. Are we setting a precedent that any property that sits below the main road uh is entitled to a sign that's taller than our signed ordinance allows? I mean, I guess I'm directing that toward our maybe our city attorney. I don't know or the attorney's office.

Can't can't answer that. I I wouldn't think you're setting anything that you would be required to follow just because you've done it, you know, a handful of times or even if you do it every someone comes up because it makes sense every time it comes up. That time where it doesn't make sense, you're not locked into a box where you wouldn't have to do it. You wouldn't be saying any kind of buying president. For sure. Okay. And the only other question that I had is there were two factors in this situation. One was that it sits so much lower in the road. Um but the other one you mentioned a 20ft White House easement. How is that impacting it to to make this necessary? They couldn't put the sign up on the easement. Is that correct? Yeah. So, it's a combination of the two, not just the fact that it sits lower than the

correct. I think if if the White House utility Well, if the White House utility district easement was not there, the sign could sit up on top of the hill and and meet meet the sign requirements. Well, then in my mind, that makes this situation unique. Um I I don't we worked a long time to get the monument signs down to a reasonable height and get rid of these, you know, the giant signs. So, I just don't want to uh do it every time that the elevation the topography is down. But this is this has two extenduating circumstances, not just one. So, anyway, I seconded the motion. Okay. So, I have a motion by myself and a second by John. Any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor say I.

I. All those opposed. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Move on to item number 12. Avery Trace Amenity Center. Uh, and before you get started, Charlie, uh, John, I will have to recuse myself from this item. So, he will have to run this for this item. How does that work? How does that work? Can we Can we vote on an item? We just lost our quorum. You still have a quorum. It's just um you'll have to person I have to abstain. Okay, Ben, you good with that? Okay. All right, Charlie. Good evening, commissioners. Charlie Perry, staff planner.

Uh, the owner and applicant is requesting approval of a final master development plan for the Avery Trace Amenity Center. This is located on a halfacre lot zoned as R8 PRD medium density residential plan residential development located east of East Main Street and north of Hartsville Pike. I'm sure many of you can recall this um master development plan came in about a couple months ago to be amended so that this amenity center could be possible. Um this is just exactly what that is. Um the applicant is proposing a many center with a pool and additional parking with the mailbox kiosk which is a little hard to see. It's up along here. Um, plan department staff asked that the um, sidewalk be extended from the parking lot to link to this sidewalk over here to increase a little bit more uh, pedestrian connectivity and over here to make access a little bit easier for the mailbox kiosk in the event. This lot fills up. As far as any landscaping goes, uh staff requested that there be additional landscaping in this open space over here to just kind of shade the or shield the houses right next to that parking lot, so nobody's headlights are shining into the windows. And the architecture is not quite up to the 70% brickstone requirement, but still is consistent with the Avery Trace Master Development Plan. Uh, plan department staff recommends approval of resolution 2025-106 with 10 conditions.

All right. Thank you. Do we have a representative for the applicant present?

David DS, 615 design group. Uh, we agree to all staff comments and we I'm open to any questions you might have. Um, question for staff. I don't think I've ever seen condition six placed on there. Is it What's that? Um regarding specifically I'll let our storm water person answer that.

Yes. So condition six is based on a new top soil/hvac inspection that engineering has recently established in partnership with the codes department as way to get a better view of how the top soil is being installed on properties. So that way you don't only get one to two inches of top soil and then straight into rock. We want to make sure that there's enough soil there for you actually be able to grow grass on residential lots, commercial lots, etc. So this is a new kind of standard comp point on most plans moving forward to bring awareness of this new permit requirement.

Okay. So um okay I just not had not seen that before. That was it is a very recent thing. So that's why it's only coming up more recently now. Uh any other questions or comments? All Councilman. Uh entertain a motion on this item. Make a motion we accept with staff's 10 commond conditions.

Motion by Albert to accept it with staff's 10 conditions. I'll second the motion. Discussion. Seeing none, then I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approval of item number uh 12 with staff 10 conditions indicate by saying I. I. And opposed. Okay. Motion carries unanimously. Did I miss something? Nope. Oh, never mind. I already recused myself.

Oh, yeah. I thought that was on the record. I'm sorry. I'll turn it back over to you. Thanks, John. Okay, we'll move on to item number 13. This is Southwater Food and Gas LED digital sign.

The owner applicant is asking for an alternative sign for Southwater Food and Gas. It's a sick cow. Uh then they're put in a digital monument sign. It's located at 600 Southwater Avenue. It's 43 acres. It's zoned commercial services. The purpose of this um well also let me just go first. Um they're going to replace the the current pole sign in the same exact location. They're going to put this one there. So that's going to make it look a lot better. The reason for this is the proximity to residential has to be 250 ft. So they're not meeting those requirements. Um the sit sign this is only for an LED price panel. Um and that's to change the gas prices digitally. They are meeting their 8 foot minimum um maximum height and um staff recommends the resolution 2025-112. Okay, thanks Kimberly. Is there a member from the applicant present? I'm Dan not imaging um Philadelphia, Tennessee.

Okay. Do you agree with all the staff comments or have anything to add? Okay. Um this I mean we discussed this at the work session and it's my opinion that this is almost a beautifification project uh for this site. So um I don't personally have any other questions or comments. I mean, it's meeting the sign uh regulations. I know it it we have to vote on it because of the proximity to the residential, but um it's going to look much nicer than what's there right now. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve with staff's two conditions. Okay. All right. We have a motion from John, second from Steve. Uh, any other discussion? Seeing none, call for the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll move on to item number 14. This is Gallatin Industrial Data Center phase 2. Jim,

thank you again, Jim Carpenter. Uh the owner applicant requests approval of an amended site plan for the Gallatin Industrial Data Center phase 2 for 135,000 foot data center with associated infrastructure on a 512.54 acre lot zoned IR industrial restrictive zone district located at 1432 Gateway Drive. Um just as a reminder um this was originally building 4. Um it was removed from the plans and then added back as a membrane structure. Uh staff has mostly minor comments on this and recommends approval of resolution number 2025-11 with four conditions.

Thanks Jim. Is there a member from the applicant present?

Brad Simpson with Barge Design Solutions out of Nashville. Uh, we've received staff's comments. Don't have any questions or concerns about them. Happy to address anything you all may have. Thanks, Brad. Uh, we talked about this one at work session. Uh, it's pretty straightforward. I mean, I I think the comment that I made at work session is that this the other buildings block this building from the view of the front of this property. So, I don't have any concerns or this is very much a building you would see in an industrial area. Anyways, John, Steve, you have anything to add? No. Or Albert? All right. So, we have a motion uh to approve from Albert. Do we have a second?

I'll second. John, we have a second from John. Uh any other discussion before we go to a vote? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item number 15. Temporary hold on reszones. Jim, is this you? This me or Brian? Brian. Okay.

Yep. Uh so just since the last uh meeting at the workshop, uh I had obviously discussed with you all that I would um pull back on recommending for this and I mentioned that to the city council. During that city council uh meeting, it was brought up that they had voted to have this direction come forward. So, uh, because of that, we're processing the request. I understand that the the planning commission had not seen this very favorably at at that point in time at when when we presented it three weeks ago at the work session. Uh, but, um, I did I'm I'm basically bringing it back to you uh, as part of our legal process to make sure that we're following um, direction from council. Um, so essentially I've made uh a couple of changes to this. Number one, I'm calling it a temporary hold uh because of the concern about the the terminology. Um, so instead of instead of what it previously had been as a call as a moratorium, we're calling it a temporary hold. Um, and then we also changed the date uh to or the term of how long it would be approved for and that I changed it instead to be a date specific that of June 1st, 2026. Um, let's see. I think I had that on previous one right here. Uh, June 1st, 2026. And uh that would still give essentially about 3 months for planning commission and three months for city council. So a total of about six months for the the temporary hold to be in place. Um so that's dialed back a little bit just for

discussion. uh but um we are essentially at the same point where uh we do have an alternative way to deal with this. So if it's causing concern from the standpoint of not being able to process certain applications that may have been in the works, it's causing concern about um you know the the look that Gallatin is not open for business for development. Uh I don't want to go down that road really. So, um, I'd rather see us be on a unified front, especially as we move forward towards adopting a new zoning code. I want our planning commission and our city council to be on a unified front there. And, um, you know, look forward to seeing some great things happen once we do adopt that new code. Um, and that I I don't foresee this being, you know, something that is a deal breaker for, you know, moving forward with that. We do have a an the ability to just create a conversion chart for any applications that are in the process now and or up until we adopt the new code to be able to uh take care of changing those once once they're done. U so we think that there's a solution there that should be able to be done. So I'll open that back up to you for discussion purposes.

Thanks Brian. There any questions or comments? Yeah. I I may not have been clear at our last meeting. I wasn't opposed to this. I was opposed to the 9month term period. Personally, I think there needs to be a breathing room uh between the old and the new code. I don't know how long that period needs to be. I know it doesn't need to be nine months. Um, but can you explain to me when you just said three months for planning commission and three months for city council? Um, why is that an overlap? And why do we need three months for each of them? That's how much time we

Go ahead, Brian. Yeah, we don't necessarily need that amount of time to adopt the the new code. uh it's an assumption that it may take more than one meeting like a work session and a regular meeting one month to to get through it. Right? Because it's a big document. It's got a lot to it.

We may need some extra time to digest those things and to have questions and and responses given for those. So, not that we're we don't plan on getting into like a a discussion on a every page type of type of thing. That'll take us months, like probably six to nine months to get through something like that. But we'll go through all the high points of what the regulations are going to go through. And I my assumption is is that it could take more than the regular amount of time. Three months seems reasonable. It could take more, but I I'm hoping not.

Okay. That's roughly That's roughly how long it took us to get through the comp plan. If you remember, we had multiple months of going through the document together at the tail end of every meeting. Um that that was why I had originally said nine months, just trying to give ourselves enough room that it wasn't going to, you know, end before we adopted it, right? But, you know, I think we can reasonably still get it done.

I was looking at it from the other side of the aisle. Instead of how long it takes us to go through the plan, I was looking at it on how long uh can a project potentially be navigating its way through planning and then through zoning and annexation. And I can see where, you know, the most we can defer something is one 30-day period, I think. So, like two months max here and two months at city council. Um, I I heard what you said at the last one and that made absolute sense. If it's an indefinite time period for the end, there's no incentive to get this thing processed and done, it can go on for a long long long time. Um, and uh, so I like the definite deadline, but why can't uh, council have this ready to enact only after planning commission has looked at the uh, at the process and has sent it to them? And then when council knows that they're about to tackle this and and and make a decision on it, then they can just put a temporary, let's say, threemonth temporary freeze on things while they work through the process. Again, this this is something that if you got if you all want to make some sort of change to it, I'm open to it at but I I stated earlier I I don't necessarily have a huge dog in the fight to uh to to do it at this point uh just because I know that there's another solution to it and I so I'm not super worried that we wouldn't be able to accomplish our goals of what we need to Um, I also don't want to h, you know, have the face of Gallatin be, hey, we're we're stopping things from happening.

Absolutely not. Um, I just I just remembered we did not hold a public hearing on this. So, if you guys don't mind, I'm going to open up for public hearing if that's okay with you. Ben, I just wanted to answer. Yes. Go ahead. Ben, assistant city attorney. You asked why get closer to the podium or sorry.

Uh you were asking why could uh couldn't council just come back three months before uh after planning has already gone through the zoning code and just institute a pause then? It's because this has to be treated as an amendment to the zoning ordinance which that whole process requires going through planning. So it's at at that point they'd have to then send it to planning to do it three months. there wouldn't really be time at that point. So, it has to be done in conjunction with the planning commission. So, your your recommendation would have something to do with it, although they still have the ultimate decision on whatever happens with this.

There's no such thing as a recommendation from us that's sitting on the shelf ready for council to to implement it only when they're really ready to go. There could be some creative wording probably about we can maybe get creative with the wording about to go into effect after planning commission approval of the uh comprehensive a new comprehensive zoning code. I think you get a little a little more dangerous when you have some less definitive terms on what exactly we're voting for and when things would happen, but I don't think it'd be impossible.

Y'all are okay with it. I'm going to open up public Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Sorry. Uh at this time, we will open up a public comment section for those that would like to speak. Seeing none, we will close the public comment. Sorry about that. Oh, good. I had temporarily forgot. Thank you. Um, okay. Thanks, Ben, for the clarification. John, did you have any other questions related to that? I don't know, maybe I'm being bullheaded. I just said we don't send this recommendation to council until we also send them the uh uh plan. We we send them the approved plan that we've been through and said, "By the way, here's another recommendation that goes with that." I mean here

like I like I discussed at work session in the time before I think that this I mean we we can rename it to any anything we want. This is still a moratorum and in my opinion it's very unnecessary just because of the amount of reszones that come through in a year and I I think it's taking away from the agenda at hand which is we need to adopt the new zoning code and then when you adopt the new zoning code everything else aderes to the new zoning code. I I I think it's very unnecessary. I think it's overkill. I think it, like I said, you can rename it to temporary hold on resonings, but it's still a mortorium. And I don't think that's what we want as a city.

No, I understand mortorium is a four-letter word. Um what what happens when something is making its way through the process and um under our current code and it's halfway through when council gets um they go ahead and approve this the new document does it get grandfathered in under the old code?

Yes. Yes. It would it would adhere to the to the old zoning which in my professional experience happens a lot in a lot of municipalities. And it's just at at that point they have to understand that it got adopted with the old code. There's always going to be some discrepancy of some of some sort whenever you go from an old code to a new code

asking discernment questions. Uh, can two dozen applicants um go ahead and file um an application right now and then continually self-defer for 12 months to hold their options open.

Under our current process, yes, because we don't have a process that terminates an application once it's sat um inactive for some period of time. So, if someone had an application that they submitted three years ago and they wanted to come back and and reactivate it, um if they had never formally withdrawn that application uh in writing, then we would process it. So, there may be there are a handful of applications out there that are old like that that have not been formally withdraw withdrawn. Um, we, again, as I stated, we would create a conversion chart that would basically say any reszone applications that asked for one of the old code districts to be reszoned to, uh, would automatically change to such and such new district under the new code. And it would it would be automatically transferred that way upon adoption. Again, this would be I feel like that we would be in an entirely different place if we did not have a comp plan for that allowed people to get an understanding of how they should develop their property. But we have a comp plan that not only the planning commission has adopted and the council has adopted that provides some type of forward motion for folks that are wanting to develop their property. Now I understand that the comp plan is not law. It but it gives them a vision of how they they or slash the city wants to see their property develop.

And if we have a comp plan that states X and we have a zoning code that's being written that is supposed to adhere to the comp plan, this is unnecessary because they have a document to look towards to see how they should or shouldn't handle their property. So, in that interim period where we don't have a hold on it, are we supposed to try to hold them to the comp plan or our current ordinance?

Well, I mean, we as a body should be looking at the comp plan. If someone comes in like tomorrow and submits a reszone request, we as a planning commission should be looking at the comp plan to see if what they're doing on that property aderes to the comp plan. And that that's my professional opinion and my opinion as your colleague on the planning commission. And if you're not looking at the comp plan, then if we're not looking at the comp plan, then we're doing a disservice to the amount of time that we spent on the comp plan and just the overall vision of the city as a whole. But as far as what somebody's required to do if the comp plan has a bar that's higher

in certain category, a bar that's higher than our current ordinance, it's probably not fair of us to say we want to hold you to that higher standard of the comp plan even though it hadn't been enacted yet. So I just want forward direction as we go through these things. Do we tell people I like your plan. It's in compliance with the old ordinance, but it's not in compliance with the comp plan, which by the way isn't law yet, but um we want to try to hold you to it. I just want to understand how

I mean it they they technically have the right to say I want to adhere to the old code because that's the code that's in place which is why I've continued to say that the main effort and the the main thing that we should be looking at is focusing on adopting the new code so that we have a new code to adhere to. I I I still think if you enact this in any way, the the the new code gets put off until June 1st, 2026 or later. The way I'd love to word it, and I don't know if that it's possible, I don't know that it's legal, would be um for us to go through this uh the new ordinance and then when we send that to council, hand in hand, we send with it uh that the planning commission also recommended re recommends um as of this moment when we've passed a recommendation for this new new ordinance that there be a 90-day temporary hold on new resonings until council figures it out. And if they can't figure it out and pass it within the 90 days, then uh that's all the time they have to work with. I understand your concerns, too. But anyway, I'm probably a minority opinion on that. So

would it be feasible to have a work session with council to alleviate some of the questions they have so when we pass it we can be on one accord and expedite process. I mean we're going to be scheduling a joint work session once we start review of the code.

Yeah. But um just to discuss this one item, I don't I don't know if it's worth it to to put out notice and put the two bodies together and all to talk about this. Again, um I know from multiple members on the planning commission last week, there had been not much support for something like this. And so, uh, I don't know if the answer would change if we got the two bodies together. Question. Yes, sir.

If we were to give a positive recommendation to this item tonight and it went to council, um, when would they be voting on this? Because it's just now almost October. That that's a nine-month mortorium. Nine month temporary. There'd be there'd be essentially two months worth of meetings with the plan with the city council. Uh it'd be November. It it would go or December

early October for work session. Well, October 14th would be the work session because that's the first one. and then um uh first reading at the end of October um on the then the following week the 21st and then you'd have a public hearing in November and your second reading in at the beginning of December sec the 2nd of December. Okay. So it's six months.

Yeah. So from 2nd of December to June 1st that's where I'm saying it it would be roughly six months. to have that temporary hold if if it went as according to what I've written up in this resolution.

Well, I kind of threw out there on the table this this this concept of a 90-day temporary hold that accompanies the planning commission's approval and recommendation of the plan sent to council. If nobody else chimes in and thinks that's a good idea, I'll let it drop. Um I like it if Albert and Council don't say anything then I'm dropped. I'm going to continue to say that this is a terrible idea.

Something about very much.

Yes, sir. I mean, I like I said before, I I can and I told this to Brian, I I can see the spirit of it, but at the end of the day, it I think the the negative aspects of it far outweigh the I few month time period that it it eases the transition. But again, I I think that the main focus should be on transitioning to the new code if that's the desire of both bodies. And I but we set out on this process several years ago whenever we said we were going to recreate a new comp plan and then following it shortly after that, rewrite the zoning code. I mean this is this is something that has been three years in the making, four years in the making. So I I this is to to me it's very unnecessary. If there's no more discussion, I I have a motion that I I would like to make, but I want to make sure there's no more discussion.

No, I've spoken my piece. Steve, do you have any other discussion? Okay. And I I feel like I can make this motion based on the discussion we had at at work session. I mean, I Matt's not here, Mike's not here, and the mayor's not here. I I don't know how that affects things or how that gets Okay. I'm Go ahead. You have to have what to to approve a motion, you have to have the majority of those present.

You don't count members who aren't here as far as So basically with with his with his abstension, we're going off of a three-person vote. Correct, Ben? Yes. Okay. So, in order to have a vote tonight, I'm I'm forced to vote in the affirmative of your motion to deny. There would need to be two out of the three. If if Steve is abstaining, you'd need to have two out of three. Oh, okay. A majority. Go ahead. Okay. I will make a motion to deny the temporary hold on resonings.

Second. So, I have a motion for me seconded by Albert. Any other discussion? Okay. Marian. Okay. So, all those in favor of a denial of temporary hold on resonings, please say I. I. All those opposed? No. On principle, but yeah.

Okay. So, two to one negative recommendation with an abstension and three absences. Okay. So, we will move on to item number 16, other business. The only item of other business that we have is just to remind you all of the U TAPA conference that's coming up. It's October 20th to 22nd. Uh if you have not contacted Suzanne and wish to be able to attend that conference and take advantage of the training opportunities in order to get your four hours that you need, uh please do so. If um you want to just attend one day, that's fine. The registrations for planning commissioners are about half the cost of what it costs. In fact, a little bit more more than half the co less than half the cost of what it costs for a regular member to to go to the conference. So, it is a good deal for us to be able to get you guys in there. Um, so please just reach out to Suzanne. We don't have the agenda yet. Uh, they have not decided on that yet. So, I I do anticipate we'll have it probably before the end of this week. So,

let me know. Like I told you, I can't go on Monday. I have a meeting, but I am going all day Tuesday. Um, let me know when you find that agenda and find out if the legal uh requirements are on on Tuesday. Hopefully, they are. Okay. Where in Franklin will it be? It's um the Marriott Hotel. Yeah, Marriott.

It's October 20th through 22nd. It's a Monday through Wednesday. Half day Monday, all day Tuesday, and then a half day Wednesday. Okay. Any anything else under other business? Any announcements? Okay. Seeing none, uh motion to adjurnn. Second. Second.